Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-12-04 📝 Original message:On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2013-12-04
📝 Original message:On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:48:08PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>
> > replace-by-fee is no less speculative than your original proposals;
> > you're also trying to convince people that things should work
> > differently re: fees
>
>
> The original proposal I started this thread with hasn't even received
> comments - presumably it's uncontroversial. The other discussions are about
> how to handle fees in requests that use the payment protocol, which isn't
> currently used anywhere so doing things differently isn't possible.
>
> On the other hand you have been talking about a fundamental change to the
> behaviour of how all Bitcoin nodes operate, which is off topic for this
> thread.
>
> If you have something specific to say about how floating fees should be
> managed by SPV wallets or how fees should be negotiated when the payment
> protocol is in use, this thread is appropriate. Otherwise please take it
> elsewhere.

Other than you, replacement for fee changing isn't controversial; I know
this because no-one other than you comments on it... just like the
fundemental changes involving your proposed hardfork presumably. (which
I did comment on)


Besides, "Happily, there does not have to be One Correct Answer here.
Let wallets compete, and may the best user experience win..."

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000f9102d27cfd61ea9e8bb324593593ca3ce6ba53153ff251b3
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131204/3d192f45/attachment.sig>;